Control profligate spending
By Paul M. Weyrich
web posted July 19, 2004
Roscoe Bartlett was a surprise winner in a 1992 Congressional
race in Maryland. He had run for office before and had never
been elected. In office, he settled in as a principled but still
reliable vote that the leadership could almost always count on in
a pinch.
That is why Bartlett startled his audience at a meeting on Capitol
Hill earlier this month when he announced that he couldn't sleep
one night because he had voted for an appropriations bill which
was laden with pork and which greatly added to the deficit.
Bartlett said out loud what has been a dirty little secret in
Washington for years when he pronounced, "The appropriators
blackmail you." He said the so-called "cardinals" (the chairmen
of the appropriations subcommittees and committees) tell you
"vote for my appropriations bills or your projects won't see the
light of day". That is how, as Bartlett sees it, they keep control.
Members of Congress want to do their best for their own
constituents, and that means bringing home the bacon for their
district. So they vote for these bloated appropriations bills just so
their projects will get consideration.
"I can't do it anymore," Bartlett told his audience. "I can't saddle
my grandchildren with the kind of debt we are accumulating.
And it is really $200 billion worse than you read about because
the trust funds are counted as revenue when they really are not,
but they help hide part of the deficit."
Bartlett said he intended to write a letter to his constituents in the
form of an op-ed announcing that he no longer could, in
conscience, vote for bloated appropriations bills even though that
likely means that most projects for his Maryland Congressional
district may not be funded. "I believe they will understand and
will support my decision. " He said, "I am 78 years old. There is
nothing I want from anyone. There is nothing they can do to me."
Bartlett said neither the appropriations chairmen nor the
leadership can ever again count on his vote.
One cynic, listening to the six-term Maryland Republican said
afterwards, "Sure, he makes up his mind when he is likely about
to be elected to his last term." Perhaps, but Bartlett is known by
his colleagues as a very decent and honest man. He often tells
them what they don't want to hear.
In this Congress he is the sponsor of a bill to repeal the sections
of McCain/Feingold bill at odds with freedom of speech. He has,
for years, given a speech throughout his district on the effects of
deficit spending. This Congress, controlled by Republicans now
for a decade, for the first time with a Republican President, is
what broke the bank in Bartlett's view.
"It is hard for me to accept that a Republican President and a
Republican Congress can create the greatest increase in
discretionary domestic spending since the Great Society,"
Bartlett said.
Other Members have revolted because of the same idea. But it is
Bartlett's willingness to blow the whistle on the "blackmail" that
could have the most wide-ranging effect. While the practice has
been around for at least as long as my 38 years in this town (the
Senator for whom I worked was a member of the
Appropriations Committee), Members of Congress almost never
spoke of it in public. While it might have been mentioned in
passing as an explanation for a profligate vote, it certainly was
never made a central issue. In fairness to Bartlett, he intends to
announce his new policy before the election. Obviously, if his
constituents believe he is wrong, they can vote for his opponent
and send him packing. If they re-elect him, they will have to
understand that projects for which they want federal funding may
not get federal dollars.
If we want to actually do something about runaway federal
spending, we need to pressure Members of Congress (and
Senators for that matter) to follow Bartlett's lead and announce it
in a major, public way. When the appropriators are no longer
able to strong-arm Members, their power is gone. Once their
power is gone we can demand that they stop these massive
increases in federal spending. In fact, we might even be able to
demand that they actually CUT federal spending.
Here are other things which can help get spending under control.
We have been pushing for a vote on the Brownback-Tiahrt bill
which would establish a base closing style commission to review
all non-defense, non-entitlement federal spending. Anything that
is outdated, duplicative, fraudulent or non-productive would be
put on the chopping block. Congress would get an up-or-down
vote to either continue this kind of spending or to end it. I have
spoken with Senator Frist, the Majority Leader and
Congressman Blunt, the House Majority Whip. Both of them
promised to see about the possibility of trying to pass this
legislation in this Congress. That would be a good start, but to
really make progress we are going to have to ignite many more
Roscoe Bartletts in the Congress.
Congress is about to take a long recess beginning the end of this
week through Labor Day. Both Senators and Congressmen are
going to be spending much of that time back home. It would be
interesting to hear what they say when the Bartlett story is related
to them and they are asked to join the effort.
Paul M. Weyrich is CEO and Chairman of the Free Congress
Foundation (http://www.freecongress.org/).
Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com